There is an argument for OSU; but it's the inconsistency & benefiting from a loss....

[psuallegator]

So I had a debate today with an OSU colleague who was saying how the committee had to choose OSU for the play-off. I asked what about PSU and of course was given the "They had that second loss and one was a blow-out" logic.

- There was an argument to be made for Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to be in the play-off. (Just because I may not agree with it does not eliminate that the argument exists!)

- Of course I pointed out two things at first

1) PSU had a ton of injuries during the Michigan game. When it became apparent the game was lost, Franklin pulled the starters to avoid further injuries and live to fight another day. Margin of loss does not matter in any other sport -- it is a win or a loss.

2) If the second loss is an issue, then I guess PSU should have never scheduled Pitt. The message is screw the fans and play teams like Coastal Carolina and Portland State --- it worked for Washington. Had PSU done that, this second loss everyone brings up would not exist.

Here is when he said "Ok you got a point there."

- I agreed with him there is an argument for OSU in that that they had one loss and that loss was a very close game.

- However, the committee has clearly said in the past that conference championships are important. (Why did Ohio State pass up TCU 2 years ago even though TCU won their last game by a large margin? Because they had no conference championship we were told!)

- Now all of the sudden this year, the conference championship does not matter. Why did the players risk injury and time to partake in an extra game that did not matter?

And the final point.....

- OSU should not BENEFIT from the PSU loss, but they did. Had OSU beat PSU, OSU has to play in the Big 10 Championship. But due to the loss, instead of having to play in the Big 10 Championship risking a loss or major injury, they in essence got a bye. Even Alabama had to play on Championship Saturday and risk a major injury --- however OSU was given some sort of pass from playing because they lost a game!

Argument ended after that statement.

 

[topdecktiger]

So I had a debate today with an OSU colleague who was saying how the committee had to choose OSU for the play-off. I asked what about PSU and of course was given the "They had that second loss and one was a blow-out" logic.

- There was an argument to be made for Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to be in the play-off. (Just because I may not agree with it does not eliminate that the argument exists!)

- Of course I pointed out two things at first

1) PSU had a ton of injuries during the Michigan game. When it became apparent the game was lost, Franklin pulled the starters to avoid further injuries and live to fight another day.

2) If the second loss is an issue, then I guess PSU should have never scheduled Pitt. The message is screw the fans and play teams like Coastal Carolina and Portland State --- it worked for Washington. Had PSU done that, this second loss everyone brings up would not exist.

Here is when he said "Ok you got a point there."

- I agreed with him there is an argument for OSU in that that they had one loss and that loss was a very close game.

- However, the committee has clearly said in the past that conference championships are important. (Why did Ohio State pass up TCU 2 years ago even though TCU won their last game by a large margin? Because they had no conference championship we were told!)

- Now all of the sudden this year, the conference championship does not matter. Why did the players risk injury and time to partake in an extra game that did not matter?

And the final point.....

- OSU should not BENEFIT from the PSU loss, but they did. Had OSU beat PSU, OSU has to play in the Big 10 Championship. But due to the loss, instead of having to play in the Big 10 Championship risking a loss or major injury, they in essence got a bye. Even Alabama had to play on Championship Saturday and risk a major injury --- however OSU was given some sort of pass from playing because they lost a game!

Argument ended after that statement.

You also have some flaws in your argument. The idea that Penn St should not have played Pitt is not valid. Penn St and Ohio St each played a P5 team out of conference. Penn St played Pitt, and Ohio St played Oklahoma. Ohio St just won their game, and Penn St didn't.

The other issue is the conference championship thing. People are just wrong when they say it did matter but now it didn't. You are overlooking the difference that TCU only had 1 loss in 2014, same as Ohio St. TCU was also a conference champion, so you had two conference champs being compared to each other. Although, TCU was only a co champ, and Ohio St was an outright champ.

 

[bjf1991]

So I had a debate today with an OSU colleague who was saying how the committee had to choose OSU for the play-off. I asked what about PSU and of course was given the "They had that second loss and one was a blow-out" logic.

- There was an argument to be made for Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to be in the play-off. (Just because I may not agree with it does not eliminate that the argument exists!)

- Of course I pointed out two things at first

1) PSU had a ton of injuries during the Michigan game. When it became apparent the game was lost, Franklin pulled the starters to avoid further injuries and live to fight another day. Margin of loss does not matter in any other sport -- it is a win or a loss.

2) If the second loss is an issue, then I guess PSU should have never scheduled Pitt. The message is screw the fans and play teams like Coastal Carolina and Portland State --- it worked for Washington. Had PSU done that, this second loss everyone brings up would not exist.

Here is when he said "Ok you got a point there."

- I agreed with him there is an argument for OSU in that that they had one loss and that loss was a very close game.

- However, the committee has clearly said in the past that conference championships are important. (Why did Ohio State pass up TCU 2 years ago even though TCU won their last game by a large margin? Because they had no conference championship we were told!)

- Now all of the sudden this year, the conference championship does not matter. Why did the players risk injury and time to partake in an extra game that did not matter?

And the final point.....

- OSU should not BENEFIT from the PSU loss, but they did. Had OSU beat PSU, OSU has to play in the Big 10 Championship. But due to the loss, instead of having to play in the Big 10 Championship risking a loss or major injury, they in essence got a bye. Even Alabama had to play on Championship Saturday and risk a major injury --- however OSU was given some sort of pass from playing because they lost a game!

Argument ended after that statement.

You refer to "it" as a playoff

Therefore, you lose (if he referred to "it" as a playoff, he loses too)


End of discussion


;-)

 

[fairgambit]

You also have some flaws in your argument. The idea that Penn St should not have played Pitt is not valid. Penn St and Ohio St each played a P5 team out of conference. Penn St played Pitt, and Ohio St played Oklahoma. Ohio St just won their game, and Penn St didn't.

The other issue is the conference championship thing. People are just wrong when they say it did matter but now it didn't. You are overlooking the difference that TCU only had 1 loss in 2014, same as Ohio St. TCU was also a conference champion, so you had two conference champs being compared to each other. Although, TCU was only a co champ, and Ohio St was an outright champ.

We beat Ohio State. We won the division they were in (by tiebreaker). We won the conference they were in. They were chosen and we were not. It was a bullshit selection, and OSU proved that in a blowout loss to Clemson, a team that lost to Pitt, just as we did. Nothing will change what happened, but I rejoiced in Ohio State's humiliation and will continue to savor it regardless of the results of the Rose Bowl. With that post I am headed to slumber.

 

[nitlion6]

You also have some flaws in your argument. The idea that Penn St should not have played Pitt is not valid. Penn St and Ohio St each played a P5 team out of conference. Penn St played Pitt, and Ohio St played Oklahoma. Ohio St just won their game, and Penn St didn't.

The other issue is the conference championship thing. People are just wrong when they say it did matter but now it didn't. You are overlooking the difference that TCU only had 1 loss in 2014, same as Ohio St. TCU was also a conference champion, so you had two conference champs being compared to each other. Although, TCU was only a co champ, and Ohio St was an outright champ.

That Co champ versus outright championship was significant. At least supposedly.
The supposed importance of a conference championship and a strong OOC schedule combined with selections made this year caused the Big12 commissioner to ask for clarity because he felt Penn State's non inclusion seemed to make those points kind of unclear to what he had been told previously.

 

[wbcincy]

So I had a debate today with an OSU colleague who was saying how the committee had to choose OSU for the play-off. I asked what about PSU and of course was given the "They had that second loss and one was a blow-out" logic.

- There was an argument to be made for Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to be in the play-off. (Just because I may not agree with it does not eliminate that the argument exists!)

- Of course I pointed out two things at first

1) PSU had a ton of injuries during the Michigan game. When it became apparent the game was lost, Franklin pulled the starters to avoid further injuries and live to fight another day. Margin of loss does not matter in any other sport -- it is a win or a loss.

2) If the second loss is an issue, then I guess PSU should have never scheduled Pitt. The message is screw the fans and play teams like Coastal Carolina and Portland State --- it worked for Washington. Had PSU done that, this second loss everyone brings up would not exist.

Here is when he said "Ok you got a point there."

- I agreed with him there is an argument for OSU in that that they had one loss and that loss was a very close game.

- However, the committee has clearly said in the past that conference championships are important. (Why did Ohio State pass up TCU 2 years ago even though TCU won their last game by a large margin? Because they had no conference championship we were told!)

- Now all of the sudden this year, the conference championship does not matter. Why did the players risk injury and time to partake in an extra game that did not matter?

And the final point.....

- OSU should not BENEFIT from the PSU loss, but they did. Had OSU beat PSU, OSU has to play in the Big 10 Championship. But due to the loss, instead of having to play in the Big 10 Championship risking a loss or major injury, they in essence got a bye. Even Alabama had to play on Championship Saturday and risk a major injury --- however OSU was given some sort of pass from playing because they lost a game!

Argument ended after that statement.

It has never been said that a conference championship is the be-all, end-all. It was said it matters, IF two teams are comparable. Penn State have 1 loss to Ohio State's 2 made us not comparable. Thats how college football works, its the totality of the resume, not just the division and conference. Nothing about what was decided this years goes against that. Penn State may have beaten OSU, but we also got blown out by Michigan and lost to Pitt. Our resume was worse than theirs.

Where I have the problem is with Washington over PSU. Everyone agrees that if PSU played Portland State instead of Pitt and won, they would've got in the playoff over UW. So UW was rewarded for scheduling Portland while we were punished for scheduling Pitt. That's the lesson of 2016 for ADs. The committee could've sent a huge, positive message about OOC scheduling that would be great for college football. Instead, they ensured garbage September OOC games for the period of 2024-2030 at minimum.

 

[LafayetteBear]

psuallegator: There's no "winning" that debate. Your tOSU colleague is not gonna change his mind. Perhaps you should simply have responded to him by noting that: "Well, you guys really proved you belonged. Congrats, and enjoy the offseason."

 

[pandaczar12]

You also have some flaws in your argument. The idea that Penn St should not have played Pitt is not valid. Penn St and Ohio St each played a P5 team out of conference. Penn St played Pitt, and Ohio St played Oklahoma. Ohio St just won their game, and Penn St didn't.

Anyone who watched the PSU/Pitt game knows that PSU simply handed Pitt the game at the end. So if you give that game the old "eye test", it shouldn't be held against PSU. It's hardly any difference than a desperate MSU team handing Ohio State a 1 point victory by going for 2.

 

[LukeIamYourFather]

These debates often oversimplify. Penn State is a case of a very young team that was incredibly injury ridden early facing two very, very senior heavy teams early in the year. We face Pitt and Michigan at the end of the season and both are W's.

On the other hand, Michigan and Pitt with their seniors never really grew. You can make an argument that both teams actually got much worse as the season progressed but Pitt did also later beat Clemson so maybe the argument is stronger for a Michigan team that finished with 3 losses in their last 4.

We are one of the top 4 at this time, hands down. The committee did not recognize it. Interestingly, I'd say USC is probably top 5 at this time too and has been growing like Penn State throughout the year. If we win, the committee has to recognize their error of not putting Penn State in.

Either way, next year we are going to be a very hard out. We lose very little. We do have an even tougher schedule particularly in the one 3 game stretch but we have the horses (and some we have yet to see) to do it. It's going to be fun with this team playing all year with a huge chip on their shoulders.

 

[Cletus11]

Based on my eye test. Alabama and Clemson are the best two teams. PSU and USC (they handily beat Washington late in the season at Washington) are three and four.

 

[Cosmos]

So I had a debate today with an OSU colleague who was saying how the committee had to choose OSU for the play-off. I asked what about PSU and of course was given the "They had that second loss and one was a blow-out" logic.

- There was an argument to be made for Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to be in the play-off. (Just because I may not agree with it does not eliminate that the argument exists!)

- Of course I pointed out two things at first

1) PSU had a ton of injuries during the Michigan game. When it became apparent the game was lost, Franklin pulled the starters to avoid further injuries and live to fight another day. Margin of loss does not matter in any other sport -- it is a win or a loss.

2) If the second loss is an issue, then I guess PSU should have never scheduled Pitt. The message is screw the fans and play teams like Coastal Carolina and Portland State --- it worked for Washington. Had PSU done that, this second loss everyone brings up would not exist.

Here is when he said "Ok you got a point there."

- I agreed with him there is an argument for OSU in that that they had one loss and that loss was a very close game.

- However, the committee has clearly said in the past that conference championships are important. (Why did Ohio State pass up TCU 2 years ago even though TCU won their last game by a large margin? Because they had no conference championship we were told!)

- Now all of the sudden this year, the conference championship does not matter. Why did the players risk injury and time to partake in an extra game that did not matter?

And the final point.....

- OSU should not BENEFIT from the PSU loss, but they did. Had OSU beat PSU, OSU has to play in the Big 10 Championship. But due to the loss, instead of having to play in the Big 10 Championship risking a loss or major injury, they in essence got a bye. Even Alabama had to play on Championship Saturday and risk a major injury --- however OSU was given some sort of pass from playing because they lost a game!

Argument ended after that statement.

Good post. I would also add you've got to pass the "looks test." PSU looked like a junior high team standing next to OSU. It's indicative of having 5-star players on your roster instead of 3-star. Franklin must dial up his recruiting efforts or we'll find ourselves standing on the outside looking in more often than not. The 'Barry Alvarez model' of recruiting one 5-star player every three years and building your team around it no longers work. Not when your competing against Dabo Swinney, Urban Meyer and Nick Saban. And so the choice is ours. Either adapt of remain in the 'also ran' ranks. And if you think playing Pittsburgh is challenging (LOL!) then we've got a long row to hoe before making the requisite paradigm shift.

 

[demlion]

I really cannot believe we are still having the "body of work" discussion AFTER OSU got dismantled by Clemson.

When the wheels come off the bus in late October, it is not the best bus anymorè. We do not need to decide whether it ever was. It is enough to know it is not in the top 4. There were not just clues, there were flashing red lights.

Still surprised OSU-UM was so close? I'm not: they are both terrible teams just now.

Not comparable? Right, PSU was much better at the end of the year.

 

[GoPennState97]

I had a similar argument with my brother in law (tOSU fan). There is no way to win the argument. Penn State was screwed out of the chance to compete by the committee. When I bring up head to head and conference championships against tOSU they bring up 2 losses compared to 1. I counter that by saying that if its about wins and losses then Central Michigan at 12-0 should be in. He brings up strength of schedule. I say Penn States SOS was much better than Washington, he goes back to wins and losses and around and around we go.

Who I really feel bad for is Central Michigan and all the non P5 schools who have no chance whatsoever of playing in the playoffs the way it is set up. Central Michigan truly did all they could as a team and if they beat Wisconsin and go 13-0 will barely crack the top 10.

 

[olelion]

It's over. OSU and Washington got in , they lost. PSU is in the rose bowl

 

[AWS1022]

Good post. I would also add you've got to pass the "looks test." PSU looked like a junior high team standing next to OSU. It's indicative of having 5-star players on your roster instead of 3-star. Franklin must dial up his recruiting efforts or we'll find ourselves standing on the outside looking in more often than not. The 'Barry Alvarez model' of recruiting one 5-star player every three years and building your team around it no longers work. Not when your competing against Dabo Swinney, Urban Meyer and Nick Saban. And so the choice is ours. Either adapt of remain in the 'also ran' ranks. And if you think playing Pittsburgh is challenging (LOL!) then we've got a long row to hoe before making the requisite paradigm shift.

Um, the "junior high" team won....dumb post.

 

[VaNtyLion]

A few things I said even before final ranking came out.

1 - First of all, the losses argument. The committee - whether pollsters from years before or current committee has consistently discounted early season losses if a team rights its ship. There's considerable "over thinking" of things that transpire in September (particularly when things like injuries are so impactful) when a team in October and November is clearly a different animal.

2 - This doesn't mean losses shouldn't count for something. They should. But so should wins...and here's what is consistently overlooked - PSU finished the slate with the SAME NUMBER OF WINS AS OSU by virtue of winning their way into the B1G title game on head to head with OSU and then taking care of the #6 team in the country on that stage. If Ohio State had played in Indy and lost, there's 0 chance they're in the playoff....so why reward the team for sitting on the couch?

3 - OSU and PSU resumes were not as different as people made them out to be. Both teams handily beat Maryland and Rutgers...and struggled with Indiana. Each beat Wisky by a TD. PSU beat MSU worse than OSU and Michigan combined. Then what? OSU was given considerable credit for beating Nebraska but virtually no credit to PSU dismantling Iowa - a team that beat Michgian and destroyed that same Nebraska team - and all of this happening in the month of November.

So the long and short of this.....
4 - Essentially what this came down to - OSU's win over Oklahoma was being considerably overvalued. If that win happened in November it carries a lot more weight, and yeah OSU should be given credit for scheduling that game. However, Oklahoma in September was not a very good team. They just got dismantled by Houston....and if the AAC team that PSU had beaten earlier in the year was named Houson and not Temple (the team that actually won Houston's conference) there's a reasonable chance PSU gets into the playoff just based on the perception of that win strength.